title: Comparison of automated and manual vital sign collection at hospital wards.
abstract: Using a cross-over study design, vital signs were collected from 60 patients by 6 nurses. Each nurse was randomly assigned for manual vital sign collection in 5 patients and for automated data collection in other 5 patients. The mean time taken for vital signs information to be available in EMR was significantly (p <0.004) lower after automated data collection (158.7±67.0) than after the manual collection (4079.8±7091.8 s). The nursing satisfaction score of collecting vital signs was significantly lower (p<0.007) for the manual way (10.3±3.9) than for the automated way (16.5±3.4). We found that 30% of vital sign records were transmitted to EMR with at least one error after manual data collection whereas there wasno transmission error with automated data collection. Allparticipating nurses stated that the automated vital sign collection can improve their efficiency and save their time for direct patient care.
authors.affiliation: Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
authors.forename: Jeffrey
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Wood
authors.forename: Joseph
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Finkelstein
mesh_terms: D018592:Cross-Over Studies; D003936:Diagnosis, Computer-Assisted / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D057286:Electronic Health Records / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D006801:Humans; D016247:Information Storage and Retrieval / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D010362:Patients' Rooms / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D010808:Physical Examination / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity; D055986:Vital Signs